### NUM BER 13-08- 0059 3-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
HER A CL IO ER IC FL ORE S, A pp ellan t,
v. SHE ILA R EEVES F LOR ES, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 4 30t h Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es Y añ eza n d G arza

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z This i s a n appea l from a protecti v e order i ss ued by

the tr ial cour

t ag ain st appel lan t, Heracl io Er icF lore s. By four is sues , app ell ant c omplai ns of the l eg al and factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence to supp ortt h e t rial court's f indings of past an d f utu re fam ilySee T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 81

. 00 1, 85

. 00 1 (V ern on 20 06 ). 1 2 v i ol en c e. W e affi r m.

1 I. B A CKGRO UND Appel lee , Sh eil a R eev es Fl ores, and appel lan t w ere di v orced in Nov e m b e r 2007. She ila f iled an applicat ion fo r a prote ctiv e orde r on July31, 20 08. A bench trial w as he ld on Sep tember

24, 2008. Shei la tes ti fied on her ow n behalf and cal led , among others, the follo w ing w it ness es: app ell ant, Ri chard Sa m u d ia , a nd Laura Leal

. Appel lan t present ed the testim ony of , am ong oth ers, his broth er, Jose Flores. At tha t trial, Sheila te stif ied th at ap pellan t's beh avior af ter the div orce had bee n "in
some a re as" "nic e and ki nd" but t hat a ppel lan t had beg un "track ing " her , ac cus ing her of bei ng a w hore, t hreateni ng to tak e the chil dren aw ay f ro m her , and att empti ng to "cont ro l
w here [s he w as] at and w hen [ she w as] g oin g to be there
. . . ." Shei la sta ted t hat s he had asked app ellantnot to "com e by" her residen ce; ho w ever, appe llant to ld her tha t he would do w hatev er

he w anted to do

. Shei la cl aimed that appel lan t had repeated ly "threatened that [sh e] w il l not g o out
w it h any one el se" and has s tated that"he d oesn' t ev en c are i f he's ar re ste d [be caus e] [ n]o matter w hat, he's not g oin g to letthathappen ." Acc ordin g to Shei la, appel lan t has cal led "e ach p erson " tha t she h as "tried to go out w ith" and "talke d po orly or both talked poo rly abo ut [h er] and th re a t e ned them ." She ila state d tha t app ellanthas be en " telling peop le that [sh e is] u sin g d ru gs" and "ac cus ing [her ] of hav ing dr ug deal ers o ut i n frontof her house

. . . ." Shei la tes ti fied th at on one occ asi on w hen s he w as droppi ng her ch il dren off at
sc hool , appel lan t "blo ck ed" her v ehi cl e w it h his v ehi cl e. Acc ordin g to Shei la, appell antO n cr oss- exam i nat i on, Shei l a st at ed: 2 I ' d al r eadybee n pr esent ed wi t h hi m [ appel l ant ] z oom i ng— oops, sor r y — z oom i ng up b ehi nd m e i n t he g r av el par k i ng l ot of m y ki ds' schoo l wi t h al l t he o t herpar ent s t her e, t r y i ng t o bl ow t hi s t hi ng o ut i n t he m i ddl e of t he par k i ng l ot

. And t hen I was pr esent ed wi t h hi m not l et t i ng m e go but cont i nui ng a head ofm e, bl ocki ng m e off , get t i ng o ut of t he ca r i n t r aff i c and t hr owi ng a pho ne a t m y wi ndow an d t r y i ng t o ge t i n m y doo r
. Y es, I f el t t hr eat ened. S he i l a c l ari fi ed t ha t ap pe l l an t ha d n ot " ph y s i c al l y " t hro w n t he ph on e a t he r.

O n c ro s s -e x a m i n a ti o n , S h e i l a s ta te d th a t s h e h a d c a l l e d th e p o l i c e re g a rd i n g th i s i n c i d e n t. 3 3 "came u p in a ru sh in his car behi nd" her ask ing her to answer her phone and t o s peak w it h her ex-boyf riend's w ife, La urie Regusa. She il a t o ld a p pellan t, "L ook, not atthe kid's
sc hool ," and then drov e aw ay
. Shei la st ated that, as she drov e of f, appel lan t drov e around her , s topped his ca r in front of her car, ex it ed his v ehi cl e, and shouted that Shei la "bette r tal k t o" Laur ie. Shei la tol d appel lan t that she w as g oin g to c all the pol ic e. Sh eil a s tated 2 3 tha t app ellant wa s " ir ate " an d tha t she feare d for her safety and felt threa ten ed. Sheila
ex pla ine d that appe ll ant w as at he r car door and the t ra ff icw as pass ing by her v ehi cl e; s he thoug ht t hat h e w as "g oin g to pul l [her ] out ." Shei la sta ted t hat a ppel lan t "w as jus t s o, y ou know , ang ry , I di d notkn ow w hat t o thi nk. I j ustneeded hi m to l eav e me al one." Shei la tes ti fied th at w hen she w as at a frie nd's bir thday par ty , app ell ant a pproache d her an d s a id , " I'm going to be watching ev erything y ou d o w hile y ou're a t this par ty

. . . . Y ou better

not be ta lk ing to any body el se becau se I' m g oin g to hav e my ey e on you ." Sh e ila st a te d th a t s h e pu rp o se ly mo ved f ro m lo ca ti o n to lo ca ti o n atth e hu ge
w areh ouse w here th e p a rt y w as he ld, bu t she no ticed th at ap pellan t "cha nged his posi ti oni ng so thathe w as, l ik e, s tar ing at [her ]." Later, Shei la and a male frie nd w ent t o retrieve sev eral item s f rom her car, and a ppe llant followed t hem o utside a nd to ld She ila's frie nd to g o i nsi de. Acc ordin g to Shei la, appel lan t then "blo ck ed" her w ay and woul d not all ow her to g o back to the par ty

. Shei la sta ted that appel lan t tol d her that they needed toT he r ecor d r ev eal s t hat t wo r ecor di ngs wer e pl ay ed i n open cour t

. T he co ur t r epor t erdocu m ent ed 4 t hat t he r ecor di ngs wer e no t cl eareno ugh f ort r anscr i pt i on. T he co ur t r epor t err equest ed co pi es of t hose t ape r ecor di ngs. However , t he cour t r epor t er not ed i n t he r ecor d t hat t hose r ecor di ngs h av e no t bee n pr ov i ded. T hose r ecor di ngs a r e no t i ncl uded i n t he a ppel l at e r ecor d. 4 "tal k about thi s" and that Shei la "w as not g oin g to be seei ng other peopl e." Ap p e ll ant allegedly said, " W e ne ed to get togeth er, and w e ne ed to f igure out w hat 's g oing on he re becau se I'm not g oin g to all ow y ou to be g oin g out w it h peopl e." Shei la tol d appel lan t t hat he n eed ed to let her go, or she w ould call the host ess of the party to "co me and help" her. Afte r Sh eil a repeated thi s t o appel lan t s ev eral ti mes an d fifteen mi nutes had pass ed, appel lan t "l et" S hei la g o bac k t o the party

. Shei la tes ti fied that she notic ed th at ap pel lan t left t he par

ty w hen s he l eft. W hen asked if ap pellan t had ev er called an d threa ten ed h er, She ila rep lied, "W ell, he's done tha t num erou s time s." She ila claime d tha t she reco rded those threat enin g calls from appel lan t, and t he tr ial co urt al low ed th e recordin g s t o be pla y ed. W hen as ked, "The 4
v oic e tha t w e heard on that re cordin g , is that the d emeanor and how

[app ell ant] approac h e s you ?", S hei la re spond ed, "R epeated ly , y es. " The foll ow ing ex chang e the n
occ ur re d: [ S h e i l a ' s c o u n s e l ] : And y ou fe l tt h a ty o u h a d t o fi l e t h i s p ro t e c t i v e or der

becau se he w as threateni ng y ou? [Shei la] : Cor re ct. [Sh eila's coun sel]: Did y ou fear for y our safety? Did y ou feel tha t he co uld

har m y ou? [ S h e il a ] : De f in it e ly. [Shei la' s c ounse l] : W hy do y ou s ay

that ? [Shei la] : Jus t by how his behav ior has esc ala ted ov er ti me and

beca use h e's said sta tem ent s t o me thathe do esn't know how he woul d respon d i f he saw me outw it hW e no t e t hat i n i t s or der , t he t r i al cour t speci f i cal l y st at ed t hat appel l ant ' s l i cense t o car r y a handg un 5 was not suspend ed. H owev er , i n hi s br i ef , appel l ant st at es t hat t he t r i al cour t was wi t hout aut hor i t y t o al l ow a p p e l l a n t t o re ta i n h i s l i c e n s e p u rs u a n t t o s e c ti o n 4 1 1 .7 2 (a )( 1 2 ) o f th e g o v e rn m e n t c o d e
. See T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 4 1 1 .7 2 ( a ) ( 1 2 ) ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 )

. A c c o r d in g to a p p e lla n t, h e w a s r e q u ir e d to s u r r e n d e r h is c on c ea l ed ha nd gu n l i c en s e, de s pi t e t he t ri al co urt ' s orde r.

W e no t e t hat Shei l a owns hero w n bu s i ne s s , B uena Suer t e Hom e Heal t h Car e, t hat i s l ocat ed i n 6 M cAl l en, T exas. 5 someone, and he di dn'tthi nk he w oul d hav e co ntrol o ve r h im s e lf , a n d f ro m h im b lo c k in g m e o n t h e two occ asi ons that w e di sc uss ed, p lus one other oc cas ion

. Shei la tes ti fied th at s he has as ked appel lan t t o chang e his behav ior and leav e her alon e. She ila docu me nte d tha t she has told appe llant to leave her alon e a tle a s ttw ice each month s inc e D ecember 2007. After

Shei la filed her

appl ic ati on for a protecti v e order and app ell ant h ad ag re ed to medi ati on, s he di sc ov ered a "track ing d e vice " h a d been attac hed t o her

v ehi cl e. W he n as k ed w he th er

sh e w an te d ap pe l l an t t o be proh i bi te d from ca r r y i ng a fi rea r m, She ila said, "W ell, I really don 't feel like he would shoo t me , and if h e did, I guess he would g o to pr is on for that, so I don' t know

. I know it means a lot to him, so I don' t know w hat t o say on th at, you know." How ever, Sheila agreed thatshe w as fearf ul tha t app ellantcould 5 har m her and w as fearful for

her sa fetyand w elfare. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Sh eil a tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t had been cons tantl y ca ll ing Lau rie, her e x-boyfrien d's w ife. She ila state d tha t she ha d talke d to La urie, an d La urie
w ar ned her

thatappel lan t w as "track ing " her phone re cords. Acc o rd in g to Shei la, on another occ asi on, Laur ie sai d, "I' m sor ry
. Y ou know , y our husban d , e x-hus band [appel lan t], ke eps cal li ng me and, y ou k now , y ou need to be c areful." Af ter the div orce, Sh eila cont inue d w orking fo r appe llant's com pan y , APEX Primary Care ( "APEX ") in Edi nburg , Tex as. W hen as ked how m a n y t im e s after fil ing the 66

appl ic ati on for a prot ect iv e order sh e had g one t o her

off ic e, S hei la re pli ed, "I w oul d s ay notmore than a tota l of tw o hou rs a w eek.

. . . I w ould sa y tw o time s a w eek, but I do n't know how many w eeks that 's been. I g enerall y tr y to g et by

there tw ic e a w eek, i n and out." Shei la ex pla ine d tha t s he tr ied to ti me her v is it s to th e off ic e w hen s he not ic ed th at appel lan t' s c ar

w as not t here. W hen as ked if appel lan t had ev er hi t her , Sh eil a s tated thatdur ing the la st y ear of the ir marriage, appe llant ha d v iolent ly "thro w n [he r] out of

the h ouse ." She ila said, "He pic ked me up an d threw me out, and I ca ug ht my sel f on myel bow , and i t' s d ar k.

. . . And the reafter, he did nothit me again." Sh eila explained thatif app ellantb ecam e ma d at he r, and s he g ot ne ar

hi m, appel lan t w oul d tell her, "Don' t y ou dare come near me. Don 'ty ou d a re co m e ne a r m e ." Sh e ila in te rp re te d ap p e lla n t' s re m a rks to m e a n t h a ti f sh e di d go
near appel lan t, "itco uld happen ag ain ." She il a s t a t e d t hataltho ugh she is notaf raid w hen she goes to th e of f ice, she is afrai d w hen s he i s o ut s oci all y . She s aid : So when I w alk outmy doo r an d I wa lkt o my ma ilbox, I l ook to see if som ebo dy is w atch ing. And I never would have some one ov er at my house becau se I k now

thathe woul d be in that door or he woul d g et t hem on t he way o u t th e door

. And I kn ow al l of that b ecaus e he' s t old me th at repe ate dly, and he's told every one a roun d me thatrepea ted ly . And he 's told peopl e w ho w ere my

fri ends that. Shei la ack now led g ed that appel lan t had not broken dow n her door , butex pla ine d tha t s he does not h av e g uest s b ecaus e s he is afrai d. Shei la tes ti fied that on one oc cas ion w hen her ex -b oyfrie nd c ame to her re si dence , app ell ant "c hased [t he ex-b oyfrie nd] d ow n w hen he l eft the h ouse. " Shei la sta ted: Bu t I d o k n o w , o n M a y 5 t h , t h a t h e [ a p p e l l a n t ] s a i d h e w o u l d al w ay s b e a7

threat i f I w ent out w it h any one. He said he w oul d not care i f he w as ar re ste d but h e c oul d be— not b e tr ust ed on how he woul d resp ond if he saw me w it h som eon e or som eon e saw—or saw me w ith som eon e in my house . He said that to me on th e phone on M ay the 5th. W hen as ked if sh e w as in fear for her li fe, Shei la sai d, "I beli ev e w hen he say s h e c annot be tr ust ed and does not k now w hat he c a n do that he i s g enui ne i n tha t emot ion

. And I bel iev e hi s e moti ons are often outof cont ro l. " Sh eil a s tated thatsh e felt threatened beca use a p p e ll a n tt o ld her he could no t be trust ed. Sheila explained thatshe also felt threatened bec ause she tol d appel lan t that his brother-i n- law had mow ed her

l aw n, t hen app ellant"w entand assau lted h is brothe r-in-l aw and f ired hi s s is ter in f ront of their chi ldren
. . . ." Shei la tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t t hreatens any one as soc iat ed w it h her and that puts her i n dang er

bec ause she canno t be around an y one w ho i s b ein g threatened by appel lan t. Samudi a, a p riva te inv est ig ator , t est ified thathe c onducted a n i nv est ig ati on
conc er nin g a G PS de v ic e tha t w as "stra p p e d" to the b ack ax le of Sheil a's v ehi cl e. Acc ordin g to Samudi a, he w ent to T-M obi le, the company w here the GPS dev ic e had bee n purch ased , and discovered tha t the GPS de v ice w as listed on app ellant ' s T-Mobile
acc ount. Subseq uentl y , the dev ic e w as remov ed f ro m Shei la' s v ehi cl e and Samudi a too k the dev ic e w it h him. Samudi a sta ted that w hen the d ev ic e w as tur ned on, he n oti ced that a black Jee p Cheroke e, registered to Savann ah Gon z alez, was followi ng h im. Sam udia dis cov ered th at G onz ale zi s a ppel lan t' s n iec e. Samudi a too k t he dev ic e w it h him for a da y and t ra v ele d to El sa, Tex as. Sa mudia sai d:

And t he dev ic e has thaton -a n d -o f f sw it ch, so I w oul d tur n i t on and o f f

. W h e n I w ant ed th em to follow me , I w ould turn it on, a nd th ey w ould follow me . Th en, w hen I w ould park to see w ho was fo llow in g m e , I w ould t u r n i toff

. A n d I n o t i c e d th e Je e p co mi n g aro u n d so I t u r n e d i to ff a n d I l e ft the a re a.8 I w ent t o M onte Al to, and I tur ned it back on w hen I w as on th e hig hw ay and letthem know

thatI wa s in M onte Al to. And w hen I headed back to El sa, the Jeep w as g oin g to Mo nte A lt o. Samudi a the n w ent t o W esl aco, Tex as, and tur ned t he dev ic e on so that the p arty foll ow ing him w ould know w here he w as locat ed. Once in a pa rking lot, Sa mu dia tu rned the de v ice off

. Samudi a s tated thathe s aw appel lan t dr iv ing the Jeep that w as follo w ing hi m. O n redirectexa m inati on, S amudia tes ti fied th at he w as cer tai n tha t i t w as appel lan t w ho w as follo w ing the GPS sig nal , and on c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Sa mudia sai d tha t t here w as "no doubt" that itw as appel lan t. Leal tes ti fied th a t s he has w or ked for She il a for about four mont hs. Ac cordin g to Leal , s he had nev er met appel lan t. Leal w as del iv er ing so me paper w or k t o Shei la at he r
re si dence one morni ng , and sh e s aw a Cadi ll ac X LR par ked in front of Sheil a's resi dence

. W hen Lea l w ent b ack

to her ca r, sh e not ice d t hat t he C adi ll ac X LR "w as dr iv ing by real sl ow r ig ht ne xt t o her

ca r. " Lea l sta ted t hat t he ca r lo o ke d suspi ci ous and i t w as dr iv ing slow ly and then sped up on ce it passe d by her car. L eal called a co-w orker and a sked if she knew

wh o d ro ve a C adi ll ac X LR, and the c o- w or ker st ated that appel lan t di d. Leal id e n t if ie d a p p e ll a n ta s t h e p e rs o n sh e sa w d ri vin g t h e Ca d il la cXL R t h a td a y. Leal foll ow ed th e c ar
. W hen s he l osttrack of w here the C adi ll ac X LR had g o n e, Lea l drove back to She ila's street to make sure tha t the re w as not hing e ls e su s picious. Leal then sa w

the Cad il lacX LR par ked on She il a's st re et ag ain

. App ellantden ied kno w ing anything abo utt h e GPS device attach ed to Sheila's
v ehicle. Appe llant sta ted thattracking dev ices are insta lled in a ll c o mp any v ehicles. App ellanttestif ied th at he had no idea w hy the tracking dev ice w as inst a ll ed o n She ila's personal v ehi cl e and sai d that w as a ques ti on for his maint enanc e depar tment. Ap pel lan t9

said t h a th is m ainte nan ce de partm entputs th e tracking devices on all of his comp any's
v ehi cl es; how ev er , app ell ant a ck now led g ed th at S hei la' s v ehi cl e di d notbel ong t o the company
. Appel lan t s tated thaton o ne oc cas ion , he did par k h is ca r on S hei la' s s treet
mo me nta rily

in order to use his phon e. App ellant claime d tha t he w as passin g by She ila's residen ce to " see if

anybody w as outt here " and " ma ke sure she was okay." Appellan t said that he di d notrecal l lea v ing Shei la' s resi dence and then re tur nin g
. How ev er , app ell ant tes ti fied th at he had onl y passed by

Sheil a's resi dence aboutthree or four ti mes s inc e the div orce. Ap pel lan t s tated thathe d id n o t hav e a "l eg it imat e" reason to be pas si ng by Shei la' s h ouse. Appell ant a dmitted t hat h e had cont act ed th re e men w ho She il a dat ed after the div orce, i ncl udi ng M ic hael R eg usa. Ap pel la nt s tated thathe fol low ed M ic hael and "tr ied to g et hi m to p ull ov er ." Appel lan t cl aimed he w anted to t alk to Mi chael but that he di d not sto p. How ev er , appel lan t lat er sta ted that he knoc ked on Mi chael 's w in d o w. Appell ant cl aimed that he c ontacted M ic hael and the o ther men Sh eil a dat ed bec ause he w as
conc er ned abo ut hi s c hil dren. W hen as ked if he recal led bl ock ing S h e ila' s v ehi cl e, ap pel lan t s tated thathe h ad "nev er bl ock ed" She il a. Acc ordin g to appel la n t, h e was merel y tr y ing to g et S hei la to answer he r ph one a nd talk to Lau rie. App ellantst ate d tha t She ila w ould not pu ll ov er so he "drov e pas t her , gotin f ro nt of her and slow ed dow n [hi s] car and sto pped an d g ot ou t of [his ] c ar
. And s he w as dr iv ing up, and s he ro lled dow n the w ind ow ; and [s he] s aid , 'W hatdo you want.'" A ppe llant testif ied th at Sh eila w as no t blocke d in beca use sh e cou ld hav e dr iv en around hi s v ehi cl e. App e lla n t st a ted t hat h e di d notprev ent S hei la from re-See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 81. 001, 85. 001. 7 See id. § 7 1.00 4 (V ern on 20 08 ). 8 T he t r i al cour t not ed t hat app el l ant coul d com m uni cat e wi t h Shei l a at AP EX per t ai ni ng t o bu si ness 9 m a tte rs , s u b je c t t o th e o th e r p ro v i s i o n s o f th e o rd e r. W e n o te th a t p u rs u a n t to a n a g re e m e n t w i th a p p e l l a n t, S h e i l a w a s a w a rd e d a s a la r y o f $ 7 0 ,0 0 0 p e r ye a r p l u s $ 1 7 ,0 0 0 to w o rk a t A P E X

. S h e i l a a l s o a g re e d to c o n t i n u e w o r ki n g a t A P E X. 10 enter ing the par

ty but, ins tead, had noti ced that she had been at he r car for a l ong per iod of time and w ent outs ide and ask ed her to come b ack i nsi de th e par

ty

. Appel lan t den ied that he w as harass ing or threateni ng Shei la. The tr ial courtiss ued a final protecti v e order and found that appel lan t had co mmitt ed family v iol ence and t hat famil y vi ole nce is l ik ely

to occ ur i n the future. The protecti v e order

7 proh ibited app ellantf rom: ( 1) "com mitt ing fa mily v iolence [,] i e: causin g fear of bod ily harm
or bodi ly i nju ry to [Shei la] , as defined in secti on 71. 004 of the T e xas F amil y C ode" ; ( 2)

8 communi cat ing dire ctl y i n a t hreateni ng or harass ing manner

w it h Shei la; ( 3) communi cat ing a t hreat t hroug h any perso n t o S hei la; ( 4) "eng ag ing i n c onduct di re cte d spec ific ally t o ward [S hei la] thati s reason abl y l ik ely to harass , ann oy , al ar m, abus e, tor ment, or

embar ra ss [Sh eil a]"; (5 ) g oin g to or near Shei la' s resi d e n ce for a ny othe r pur pose than transfer ri ng the chi ldren pursuantto the p arti es' di v orce decree or w ri tten agreem ent ; and (6) g oing t o or n ear Bue na Su erte Hom e Health Care in McAllen, Te x as. 9 The tr ial cou rta lso o rd ered appe ll ant "[ n]ot to ha ra ss , t hreaten or di stu rb the peace of [Shei la] ." II. L EGA L A ND F A CTUA L S UF FI CI E NCY By four iss ues br iefed as one, appel lan t c ontends thatthe ev ide nce is l eg all y and factu ally in suf f icient to supp ort the trial court's fin dings thathe com mitt ed fam ily v iolenceSee id. §§ 81. 001, 85. 001. 10 Schaban
- M aurer

v. Maurer

- Schaban , 2 3 8 S .W .3 d 8 1 5 , 8 2 3 (T e x . A p p .– F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) 11 ( ci t i ng U niroyal

G oodr i ch Tir e Co. v. Martinez , 9 7 7 S .W .2 d 3 2 8 , 3 3 4 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ); R o b e rt W . C a l v e rt, "No Evi dence"

and"I nsuf

f i ci ent Evi dence"

Points of

Er ror , 38 T EX
. L. R EV
. 36 1, 36 2-6 3 (19 60 ))

. C i t y of Kell er v. W i lson , 16 8 S

. W

. 3d 80 2, 80 7 (T ex
. 20 05 ). 12 I d. at 822

. 13 G ol den Eagl e Archer y, I nc. v. Jackson , 11 6 S

. W

. 3d 75 7, 76 1 (T ex
. 20 03 ). 14 11 and thatfam ily

v iolence w ould occur again in the f utu re. Specif ically , in his f irst and th ird 10 issues, a ppe llant argues that the evidence is factu ally insuf f icient to supp ort the trial court's findi ng s t hat famil y

v iol ence occ ur re d and wou ld l ik ely oc cur i n the future; by

hi s s econd and fourth issues, ap pellan t argues tha t the ev iden ce is legally insuf f icient to supp ort tho se f indings. A . St and ard o f Rev iew "A l eg al suffici ency

chall eng e may

onl y be s ust ain ed w hen ( 1) the re cord di sc los es
a c omplet e abs ence of ev ide nce of a v it al fact, (2 ) the cour t is bar re d by

r ule s o f law

or of
ev ide nce f ro m gi v ing w eig ht t o the onl y ev ide nce offered to prov e a v it al fact, ( 3) the evidence o f

fered to prove a v ital fact i s no more than a mere scintilla, or (4) the ev iden ce
e s t a b li s h e s c o n c lu s ive ly t h e o p p o s it e o f a vit a l fa c t

. " In a le ga l s u f f ic ie n c y re vie w, we 11
mu st v iew

the evidence in the light mostfavora ble to the verdict, crediting fa v orab le evidence if

a reas o n a b le fact-f inde r could an d disregarding contrary evidence u nless a
re asona ble fact- finder

co uld not. The fina l tes t for leg al suff ici e n cy mustal w ay s b e

12
w hether the ev ide nce at t ri al w oul d enable rea sonab le and fair-mi nded pe opl e to re ach the
ve rd ic tu n d e r r e vie w. 13 In a factual su ff ic ien cy

rev iew , w e mustco nsi der and w eig h all of

the ev ide nce in a
neu tral lig ht. The ev iden ce is factu ally insuf f icient only if w e conclu de "tha t the v erdict is 14I d. 15 I d. (i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ). 16 T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 81. 001, 85. 001. 17 12 so ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the ev ide nce as to be mani festl y unj ust , re g ardle ss of w hether the re cord cont ain s some ev ide nce of probati v e force in suppo rtof the v erdict." To s et as ide the v erdict, w e must "det ail the ev ide nce re lev ant t o the i ss ue"

15 and t hen s tate w hy the ev ide nce is "factual ly i nsuffici ent o r is so ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and prepo nde rance as to be man ifestly unju st; w hy it shocks the c o n s cience ; or clearly demonst ra tes bi as. " 16 B. A nal ysis Appel lan t arg ues that the acti ons Shei la cl aims he commi tted di d not "ar is e [s ic] t o the l ev el of 'famil y

v iol ence' as defined by the appl ic abl e c ode, or as i nter pre ted byany
cour t i n thi s s tate, and par

ti cul ar ly by thi s [ C] our

t." Appel lan t al so ass erts that his al leg ed act ion s o f "i mpedin g mov ement on the roadw ay or at the p arty , t he GP S track ing dev ic e, cal li n g [ S heila's] lov ers/bo yf riends an d pa ssing by [She ila's] hom e" neith er resulted "in physical harm, bod ily

injury , assau lt, or sexual assau lt upo n [Sh eila]" nor place d She ila in fear of i mminentphy si cal har m, bodi ly i nju ry , as saul t, or

se x ual as saul t. A trial co ur

t s ha l l ren de r

a p rot ecti v e orde r

i f, aft er a h ea r i ng , i t fi nd s t ha t fam ily
v iol ence has occ urre d a n d is l ik ely to occ ur i n the future. F amil y v iol ence inc lud es "an 17 actby a member

of a f a m ily o r hous ehol d ag ain st another member

of the famil y

or house hol d .

. . that

i s a threat t hat reason abl y pl a ce s t he member

i n fear of immine nt p h ys ic a l h a rm , b o d il y in ju ry, a s s a u lt , o r s e xu a l a s s a u lt , b u td o e s n o ti n c l u d e d e fe n s iveI d. § 7 1.00 4(1 ). 18 See id. §§ 81. 001, 85. 001. 19 13 me asure s to prote ct one self ." Our focus, the refore, is on th e evidence regarding any act 18 by a pp el l an t th atw as a t hrea t rea s on ab l y pl ac i ng She i l a "i n fea r

of i mmi ne ntp hy s i c al h ar m, bodi ly i nju ry , as saul t" and the li kel iho od th at s uch threats , i f made, w oul d reocc ur i n the future. 19 In t his ca se, Shei la sta ted t hat after the marr iag e ended, appel lan t t hreatened her
on numerous occ asi ons, and tape re cordin g s of thos e all eg ed threa ts w ere play ed for the tr ial co urt. Shei la tes ti fied that she felt threatened and feared for her sa fety

. Acc ordin g to Shei la, appel lan t s tated that : (1 ) she coul d notg o out with any one el se; ( 2) he w as not
sure how

he woul d respon d i f he saw her o ut w it h s omeone el se; ( 3) he d id not t hin k h e coul d c ontrol hims elf

i f he saw

her w it h s omeone el se; and (4 ) he di d notca re i f he w as
ar re ste d. Shei la sta ted t hat a ppel lan t t old h e r th a t " h e w oul d al w ay s b e a t hreat i f [she]
w ent o ut w it h any one" and thathe c oul d n o t b e " tr u sted" i f he saw her w it h s omeone or
someone w as at he r house

. She ila testif ied th at she w as af raid to allow g ue s t s to com e to he r reside nce becau se appel lan t "repeated ly " tol d her that"he woul d be in that door or he woul d g et t hem on th e w ay out t he door ." Shei la ack now led g ed th at ap pel lan t had not broken dow n her door , butex pla ine d tha t app ell ant h a d " ch a sed" her ex -b oyfrie nd w hen he left he r
re si dence

. She ila t estif ied th at ap pellan t "blo cked" her v ehicle f rom lea v ing her children's
sc hool

. Shei la desc ri bed app ell ant a s i ra te an d s tated that she feared for her sa fetyand felt threa ten ed. She tho ught tha t app ellantw as going to pull her ou t of the vehicle. She ila14

called th e po lice to repo rt the incide nt. Ap pellan t argues tha t She ila's fe ar thathe w ould pul l her out of t he v ehi cl e w as unreason abl e becau se he had "nev er before lai d a hand on her or harmed h er

i n any form or fashi on i n the pas t." H ow ev er , Sh eil a s aid thatappel lan t had v iol entl y

throw n her

out of the house w hen they w ere sti ll m ar ri ed. After that inc ide nt, She ila interpret ed a ppe llant's r e que st tha t she m ove aw ay f rom h im w hen he w as an gr y to m ean thathe m ight do it again if she w ent nea r him . Appe llant also prevented Sheila f rom re-en tering a party and w arne d he r that she bett er not b e talking to an y one else beca use h e w as ob serv ing her activ ities. There w as ev ide nce present ed that appel lan t uti li z ed a track ing dev ic e to monit or Shei la' s v ehi cl e. Samudi a testi fied that w hen he re mov ed the track ing dev ic e and car ri ed it to v arious locatio ns, he obse rv ed a ppe llant drivi ng a car registered to app ellant 's niece follo w ing the si g nal

. There w as als o ev ide nce present ed th at ap pel lan t had threatened peopl e as soc iat ed w it h Shei la, and Shei la tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t as saul ted h is brother-i nlaw after sh e i nformed app ell ant t hat t he brother-in- law had mow ed her

l aw n. In an aff ida v it , admi tted as peti ti oner 's ex hib it2, Ma rt in Pena I I, Shei la' s fr ien d, s tated thatJo n Scep ansk i, appel lan t' s fr ien d, ha d cont act ed him and infor med him that appel lan t had hi re d a pr iv ate i nv est ig ator

to "w atc h" Shei la. Shei la tes ti fied th at s he had ask ed appe ll ant n ot t o "c ome by " her resi dence but that appel lan t t old he r h e w oul d do w hat h e w anted to do

. Leal tes ti fied th at s he obs er v ed appel lan t par ked in hi s veh ic le on She il a's st re et. Leal bec ame so co ncer ned abo ut appel lan t' s v ehi cl e, s he c all ed anot her co w or ker

and follo w ed appe ll ant. Appel lan t t est ified that he di d not hav e a "leg it imat e" re ason to pa ss by Shei la' s resi dence , butadmi tted he had bee n par ked on her street. On both occ asi ons w hen appell ant p re v ented Shei la fromSee C i t y of Kell er , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d a t 8 0 7 ; see a lso Cl em ents v. H askovec , 251 S. W

. 3d 79, 84 ( T ex. 20 App.
- - C or pus Chr i st i 200 8, no pet

. ) ( concl udi ng t hat t he a ppel l ant ' s beh av i orconst i t ut ed f am i l y v i ol ence, ev en t hough he nev er act ual l y st r uck hi s daugh t er and t hat appel l ant ' s t hr eat s t o hi s wi f e an d da ught erand t he f act th a t h e r a i s e d h i s f i s t a t h i s d a u g h te r w e re "s u ff i c i e n t t o i m p l i c a te h i s c o n d u c t a s fa m i l y vio l e n c e "); Si egert v. F lan ne ry , N o. 04- 03- 00487
- C V, 200 4 T ex. App. LEX I S 6989, at * * 2- 6 ( T ex. App. –San Ant oni o Aug. 4, 200 4, no pe t

. ) (m em
. op
. ) (fi nd i ng t ha t t he ap pe l l an t ' s ac t i on s of po s t -di vorc e h ara s s i ng an d i nti m i da t i on co ul d h ave be en fou nd t o be t hre aten i ng an d t o h ave reas on ab l y pl ac ed t he pe t i t i on er i n fe ar of i m m i ne nt ph y s i c al ha rm , b o d i l y i n ju ry, o r a s s a u l t); Thom pson v. Thom pson- O 'R ear , N o. 06- 03- 00129
- C V, 200 4 T ex. App. LEX I S 5033, at *4 (T ex
. A pp
. –T ex ark an a J un e 8 , 20 04 , no pe t

. ) ( m em
. op
. ) ( " A t so m e p oi nt, ha ras s m en t m ay t ran s form i nto an ac t i ve t hre at. " ).

See G ol den Eagl e Archer y, I nc. , 116 S. W

. 3d a t 761

. 21 15 lea v ing , Sh eil a as ked appel lan t t o l eav e her alo ne and appel lan t re fused. Shei la tes ti fied that she has ask ed appe ll ant to leav e her alone numerous ti mes and thatafter appel lan t agreed to a me diatio n, she discovered the tracking dev ice atta ched to her car. Viewi ng the evidence in th e lig ht mo st favorable to th e v erdict, cred iting fa v orab le evidence if

a reason able fact-f inde r could an d disregarding cont ra ry e v iden ce un less a
re asona ble fact- finder

co uld not, w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce is le gal ly su ff ic ien t t o suppo rtthe tr ial co urt' s f ind ing s that fam il y vi ole nce occ ur re d and is lik ely to occ ur in the fut u re
. W e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ' s fi rs t a n d t h i rd i s s u e s
. M o re o v e r , a ft e r c o n s i d er ing and

20
w eighing all of the evidence in a neu tral lig ht, w e cann ot conclude tha t t h e t ri a l c o urt's findi n gs a re ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce as to be
ma nifestly unju st. W e overrule appe llant's seco nd a nd fourth issues. 21 IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s j udg ment.
LIN DA R EY NA Y AÑ EZ J U S T I C E
Del iv ered and filed the 30th day of Aug ust , 201 0.